Archive for February, 2008

A Plea to Ralph Nader

Sunday, February 24th, 2008

Ralph, darling, I feel all too poignantly the shortcomings of our non-parliamentary system. I understand that we lack options and variety in fancy names for political parties. And I understand that one politician, running half-cocked with too much money and too little sense, can ruin an important electoral cycle.

We’ve had some fantastic times, Ralph. Remember when Al Gore was running and the Republican party started running ads supporting you? That wasn’t because they felt you would be a good president. I’m sorry to say it and it may hurt to hear it, but the Republicans supported you because they knew you would only split the left.

Ralph, don’t think I don’t appreciate all you’ve done in working with the EPA and OSHA and NGOs, because I do. You’re doing great work there. And it would be a shame to see you stretch yourself too thin; just as it would be a shame to once again loose to Republicans in some ridiculous manner that only reaffirms the world’s feelings about us.

Ralph, please do not run. Please -PLEASE- just stay out of it.

I’d appreciate it.

Stay Chill and Best Wishes

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Of Scruffy Beards and Silly Sanctions

Wednesday, February 20th, 2008

And, as Fidel Castro steps down, the Bush administration asserts that no changes in US policy toward Cuba will take place until more democratization occurs.

Does it make sense? In and of itself, yes. But in the wider view of who we trade with, not in the slightest. Consider how much business we do with. . .  let me think, China. Seems a fair comparison; both communist countries (on paper), both woefully lacking democratic participation, both countries with tight restrictions of expression and a good amount of rights that the UN seems to think people should have.

Where’s the difference?

We all know it: China’s rich. We could not afford to not do business with them. But what does that say about America philosophically? What would the founding fathers think of a country that would only stand by its beliefs when economically convenient?

Now, I don’t think we should go “spreading democracy” (which is already flawed for assuming democracy is spreadable and that we’re equipped to spread it) but if we have the president and willingness to not do business with a country which is, as we claim Cuba to be, such an affront to our “American Ideal” we shouldn’t act as if those ideals are second-place to money. Once we do that they become commodities themselves.

Which would be a nobler ideal: putting values aside for goods or putting differences aside for good?

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Opportunism Springs Eternal

Wednesday, February 13th, 2008

On February 11th, the New York Times published a piece by op-ed columnist Paul Krugman titled “Hate Springs Eternal.” In this piece, Krugman hearkens back to the glory days of the mid-50’s when presidential hopeful Adlai Stevenson saw his opponent’s running mate, a young, starry-eyed Richard Nixon’s tactics of as the type of thing that would open the door for a political climate filled with dirt digging and mud throwing, lies and innuendo. A happy place Stevenson called “Nixonland.” While Krugman rightfully identifies the standards of campaigning today as being precisely what Stevenson warned about, he goes on to ask, validly, “why, then, is there so much venom out there?. . . Most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody.” ( full article)

Now, I’m not the first to find Krugman’s conclusion here shocking, but I will go so far to say he’s gone past absurd and landed firmly in the muck of ridiculousnesses in his narrow, offensively skewed presentation of the Democratic contest.

Pardon me, but is it not one of the cornerstones of our system that we can vote for whomever we feel most qualified? Krugman is missing something in what’s either a simple glance or a simplistic understanding of polling numbers. The reason Obama is more likely to win again McCain compared to Hillary is a simple fact that everyone with half an ear in what’s happening should know: Hillay is divisive. She also comes across as deceptive by presenting a liberal facade on one side while taking countless contributions from shadow sources to finance her campaign. These things make her less endearing to independents and undecided voters who’re cleave themselves between her and McCain in match ups. Obama doesn’t have this problem. It’s not venom, it’s likability and the impression that with someone who can bring people together for the good of the nation might get some things accomplished.

Which leads to this “cult of personality” business. Labeling Obama’s following as a a cult of personality is nothing more than the latest attempt at degredation for a man who has inspired hope. Naturally, the term inspires images of WWII dictators who were raised on such pedistols and given such unquestioning support that their populations were willing to die (or kill) en masse for them. While Stevenson was warning about Nixonland, tens of thousands of Chinese citizens were dying of starvation or disease in China because Mao’s cult of personality. Is Obama’s support anywhere close to this? No. Nowhere close.

Obama’s not running on a cult of personality and it is not venom from his supporters. What brings Democrats, Independents, and Republicans to Obama’s side is just hope. Someone new has entered the political arena; happens all the time. But look at what’s he’s saying. Listen to how he speaks. See how organized he has his house. He has support where Hillary doesn’t because he is better than Hillary. He doesn’t try to say Hillary doesn’t have enough experience, he doesn’t try to say Hillary might have skeletons in her closet, he doesn’t try to say Hillary is relying on a cult following. He’s saying America can be better than it is and he’s making it work without selling out, without relying on former presidents campaigning for her, and without the lies and innuendo and filthy seeds of doubt that are being directed at him as the Clinton’s show their colors and desperation. The Clintons are campaigning in Nixonland while Obama is moving forward. He’s shown that he’s better than that and the American electorate has shown that we are ready to respond to honest politicians.

The answer to your question, Mr Krugman, on why there’s so much venom out there, is easy. There’s so much venom out there because the Clintons can’t think of any other way to win.

Now my question, what favors does Krugman feel like he’ll be entitled to from such a lopsided piece? I think someone wants an position in Clintonland.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

eBay Banning Strike Organizers, eBayer Set to Strike Victoriously

Monday, February 11th, 2008

Moving quickly in reaction to eBay’s announcement of looming changes to feedback and fee scheduling systems, users banding together in protest. Buyers and Sellers are marking the week of February 18th as a week of boycott, putting both buying and selling on hold.

Sellers, long receiving the short end of eBay’s policy changes, are now planning vacations, spring cleanings, and, most worrisome for eBay, establishing themselves on competing websites.

eBay, long accused of unfairly raising fees, impotent and unhelpful customer support, and general disrespect for users among management and executive ranks, is so far reacting to this threat in an all too predictable manner of banning several of the users most vociferous in support of next week’s mass log-out. Among those banned, the producer of this video supporting the strike:

eBay's stubborn refusal to take user feedback into consideration, respect those who contribute most to its success, and lash out at those expressing dissatisfaction my be just the chink in the giant's armor needed by competing sites like Amazon Auctions and Yahoo! Auctions to lure those fed-up with putting so much into a community that gives less the bigger it gets.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Bill Hurts Hillary; Cease and Desist to Follow

Saturday, February 9th, 2008

Another great poll by the punctual pundits of perpetual percentages (acting on behalf of TIME) report that President Clinton’s appearances on wife Hillary’s campaign trail are hurting Hillary’s presidential bid more than helping.

According to the random sampling of 1,000 voters, 19% said they were less likely to vote for Hillary due to President Clinton’s involvement compared to the 9% gain in support ( TIME, Feb 07, 2008).

Startingly, few in the Clinton camp seem to have anticipated that the first viable female candidate for President, who for months has been waving the sex card by compelling women to vote on chromosome more than issue and reason while appearing on predominantly female demographic talk shows anticipated people would be disheartened to see her leaning so much on her husband’s reputation than her own merit.

Can they really be surprised? Look at Bill. Eight years of President, major surgery, very active with charity fund raising putting everything aside to work tireless to get Hillary elected. I don’t follow the Clintons around with a handy cam and a notebook but from my point of view Bill’s working much harder than Hillary out there on the trail. Maybe it’s because he looks absolutely exhausted. Maybe because he’s on the news more than she is. But the fact remains that the image presented is that Bill is campaigning for President with more energy than in 1992 and he’s not even on the ballot.

The backlash of this campaign strategy and Obama’s strong support with female voters suggests a weak link in the Clinton campeign strategy: just as one can be a sailor and not understand oceanography, a woman who’s lived her life sheltered from Americans may not understand womans issues in America.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Missouri Shooting

Friday, February 8th, 2008

A gunman, spouting off about killing the mayor and, acording to his brother, disgruntled over traffic tickets impinging his constitutional rights, killed five people at a city council meeting last night.

Over parking tickets.

And his brother defends this nut job, saying,

“My brother went to war tonight with the government,” Gerald Thornton said in an interview with a local television station after the incident. “He decided that he could no longer verbally work it out.”

[ Article from NYTimes]

There was no war with the government. Your brother went from screw-loose crazy to dribbling oatmeal crazy, killed five innocent  people and was shot to death by the police. The only thing your sociopath brother did was prove that the Kirkwood police should take local crazies more seriously.

These were members of the community who took time out of of their lives, away from their families, to try and help their community. War with the government? These were neighbors!

Hate speech is not protected because of the risk it poses to other people and society as a whole. Hate speech against the government shouldn’t be either. The right to criticize the government is integra, don’t get me wrong. But lauding this gun-toting maniac’s actions threatens people and society and Gerald Thorton there should show more respect for those who died because his brother couldn’t handle a parking ticket.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

B.Y.O. Ballot

Wednesday, February 6th, 2008

It is nothing short of amazing the amount of hope an inspiration the American people are picking up from Obama’s campaign. People from all over this nation votes in droves last night to take part in primaries which will impact whether in November we’ll be voting for the first woman president or first non-white president. They braved cold, dark, snow, and even hurricanes to tell the Democratic Party either they’re happy with the way Washington has been working for the last few decades or that they’re ready for change. Based on the number of deligates Obama’s campeign picked up, it’s clear that his message of change is still gaining influence in the hearts of Americans across the country and across party lines.

More people have been turning out for this clection cycle than ever before. Not by thousands, not by hundreds of thousands. Millions. Pole turnout for the democrats across the country is up by millions over previous records.

California’s poles showed such a turn out that pole workers started asking people to use their sample ballots since they had ran out. That’s right, we were so eager to vote that we were running out of ballots.

There’s an energy in the air. Something sharp and nervous. Not just hope, but also fear of that hope will being lost, taken away. That’s why we have to keep pushing. It is my sincere hope that anyone who was touched by Barack Obama’s message of change enough to vote for him will also help contribute to his campaign. $5 to help get a president in the white house who won’t be pushing the agenda’s of corporate America. $5 to elect a president who inspires hope for America. Real hope. Unprecedented hope. $5 to elect a president who wasn’t born into wealth or an easy life and understands how American’s really live and what we have to struggle with.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Yes We Can Song

Monday, February 4th, 2008

Can you imagine what would happen to have a President who could inspire hope in people’s hearts? Not to downplay Clinton’s Presidency; it brought prosperity and comfort but not as much hope. Probably because things weren’t as bad as they are now. I think that’s why people react so strongly to President Clinton campaigning for Hillary; they see him and they remember when it was better. Republicans saw Bush Jr. and thought he could bring back some of what his father brought back for them maybe. It doesn’t work that way. No matter how much President Clinton supports his wife, she’s no Bill Clinton and nostalgia isn’t really the same thing as hope.

There is no surprise that a man who spent ten years teaching law at one of the most prestigious institutions of law in the world would be a fantastic speaker. But it’s one thing to speak well, and another to inspire hope. The hope that Sen. Obama inspires is no doubt one of the key reasons that his support base is as strong as it is. Real hope. Forward looking hope. Not we’ll do things like we used to, but we’ll do things better. He’s not only saying he’ll make the USA better, not only saying WE will make the us better. We have the chance to elect a president who is telling us we can do better and inspiring us forward toward that change.

How inspirational is he? His words were made into a song. He’s lyrically inspirational. We’re talking artist of hope inspirational.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Hillary Undermining Her Own Electability

Monday, February 4th, 2008

There’s a fantastic article up on the New York Times’ site detailing McCain’s growing lead and the tight race between Hillary and Obama.

What I found particularly blood-boiling was reading Hillary’s degradation of Obama’s political record only because he was elected to one less term in the US Senate than she was.

“You know, I hear all these folks talking about who is and isn’t electable — and they said all the same things in New York,” she added, noting that voter support for her grew and deepened over time. “I trust the voters — frankly, that’s who matters.”

“One thing about me, I’ve already been through tough campaigns, and I think that says something about me,” she said. “My opponent hasn’t had to go through that baptism of fire    . And in a general election, you know what’s going to happen to our nominee. Let’s not kid ourselves.”

[ full article]

It’s getting past the “oh that’s an interesting side note stage” and entering “FINE! You were elected to the US Senate one time more than he was, let’s move on.” It’s becoming obnoxious. And it overlooks the fact that he was elected to the State Senate three times PLUS once to US Senate. So, really he’s been elected to senatorial positions TWICE as much as Hillary. That doesn’t even start to delve into the differing socio-economic disadvantages that Obama had to face for his elections.

Hillary should stop beating that horse because it’s LONG since dead and, you know what Hillary, that’s not even a horse. If she thinks that counting how many times someone’s been elected to US Senate is the yard stick of “electable” then I suppose Bill Clinton never should have ran and Hillary should step aside for McCain because Mr. Qualified over there was serving in the US Senate before Bush Sr. was President.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

The Rock in Barack

Monday, February 4th, 2008

While Barack is off campaigning on the east coast after his Thursday debate with Hillary, his wife Michelle is actively holding the fort and inspiring California voters in his stead.

But tonight’s rally at San Jose State University was more than a fantastic show of energy and support for Barack’s presidential bid. Speaking to hundreds of Santa Clara County residents, Michelle Obama showed that her background has made her and her husband into people who not only know what hardships Americans face today, but understand them first hand. Her call to change is rooted in the belief and hope that change will be on the minds of Americans when her husband is in the Wight House working on the changes we need to get this country back on track.

I’m sure looking forward to having such an impassioned, articulate, thoughtful woman as our First Lady.

Michelle Obama at SJSU

 

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]
©2008 Raging Cynic | Original theme by A. Tripathi.